I support Vincent Gray for DC Mayor because...

[Anonymous]

To 16:45

Ward 5 is probably the largest Ward in the city. It encompasses some of class of the city, except perhaps the uber rich class. I will name the areas of the Ward that I know, but I am sure I may miss some. They are:

Brookland
Woodridge
Michigan Park
Fort Totten
Bloomingdale
Eckington
Galludet
Trinidad
Old City ( I think that is near Dunbar HS)
Langston Terrace

There are four metro stations in Ward 3: NY Avenue, RI avenue; Brookland and Ft. Totten.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To 16:45

Ward 5 is probably the largest Ward in the city. It encompasses some of class of the city, except perhaps the uber rich class. I will name the areas of the Ward that I know, but I am sure I may miss some. They are:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_neighborhoods_of_the_District_of_Columbia_by_ward#Ward_5

[Anonymous]

Yeah, I know. I Wikipedia'd it to death. I just don't recognize those neighborhoods at all. I do know that Catholic and Galludet are there. I just have never had occasion to visit that area of the city. A good idea for a weekend drive, I think.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Only the OP specifically asked for reasons to support Gray other than that he is not Fenty. Therefore posts railing against Fenty are not responsive, and may only cause OP to re-think her inclination to vote for Gray. She stated that she would like to vote for him, but does not wish to do so based on the fact that he is not Fenty. Thus, posting an article about how much Fenty allegedly sucks, without one mention of Gray, is not responsive to the OP's question, and only highlights the silliness of voting for Gray only because he is not Fenty.

I didn't post the link, so I'm not sure why you are acting as if I did. I only spoke to criticism of the article, which I thought was off-base. If you don't think the link belongs here, talk to the person who posted it. If your issue with the article is that it didn't go far enough in specifically outlining exactly what direction DC should go in, that is a tall order for a single article. The writer tackled the topic of why he wouldn't support Fenty. He gave HIS reasons for why he wouldn't support ONE candidate. He didn't talk about who he would support. Maybe that is coming in a follow up article, maybe that was tackled by another writer, maybe it won't be addressed. But the idea that an article entitled "Why I Can't Support Fenty" fails to achieve its thesis because it discusses ONLY Fenty is just asinine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:... But the idea that an article entitled "Why I Can't Support Fenty" fails to achieve its thesis because it discusses ONLY Fenty is just asinine.

I think the objection was not to the article, but to its posting in a thread supposedly about Gray's positives rather than Fenty's negatives. On the other hand, complaining that something is not on-topic is a bit silly when the majority of the postings are an on-going battle between two people that most of us (or at least this one of us) can't really fathom.

Anyhow, on the original topic, when an incumbent is running, an election usually reduces to a referendum about that incumbent, so there is nothing unusual about the fact that those of us voting for Gray are mainly voting against Fenty. As long as we have an experienced, reasonably serious opponent, we'll take a chance on him. Sorry not to be able to give the type of answer desired.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Only the OP specifically asked for reasons to support Gray other than that he is not Fenty. Therefore posts railing against Fenty are not responsive, and may only cause OP to re-think her inclination to vote for Gray. She stated that she would like to vote for him, but does not wish to do so based on the fact that he is not Fenty. Thus, posting an article about how much Fenty allegedly sucks, without one mention of Gray, is not responsive to the OP's question, and only highlights the silliness of voting for Gray only because he is not Fenty.

I didn't post the link, so I'm not sure why you are acting as if I did. I only spoke to criticism of the article, which I thought was off-base. If you don't think the link belongs here, talk to the person who posted it. If your issue with the article is that it didn't go far enough in specifically outlining exactly what direction DC should go in, that is a tall order for a single article. The writer tackled the topic of why he wouldn't support Fenty. He gave HIS reasons for why he wouldn't support ONE candidate. He didn't talk about who he would support. Maybe that is coming in a follow up article, maybe that was tackled by another writer, maybe it won't be addressed. But the idea that an article entitled "Why I Can't Support Fenty" fails to achieve its thesis because it discusses ONLY Fenty is just asinine.

"Just assinine". "The most absurdest nonsense."

Goose, you may as well sign in. I can always recognize you

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:... Goose, you may as well sign in. I can always recognize you

Perhaps with Jeff's help the two or three of you in the Goose clique could exchange email addresses and take your tussle offline?

[jsteele]

As has traditionally been the case, Fenty is being bought by developers. As WAMU reports, developers are taking advantage of DC election laws that allow corporations to donate directly to candidates. They simply set up multiple LLCs and max out their contributions.

Just one example:

"There are 11 companies in all. They all gave the $2,000 maximum to Mayor Adrian Fenty’s campaign and all are listed at the same address: the 8th floor at 2000 Tower Oaks Boulevard in Rockville, Maryland."

"That turns out to be the headquarters for Lerner Enterprises, the area’s largest real estate developer, and tax records show the resident agent for most of them is a vice president at the company."

http://blogs.wamu.org/the-dc-politics-page/2010/07/12/developers-with-multiple-llcs-able-to-give-multiple-donations-in-mayors-race/

So, when DCPS school buildings are turned over to developers rather than charter schools, you know why. The "education mayor" has debts to repay.

[Anonymous]

That's odd. I always thought Jeff sort of liked the First Amendment and freedom of speech. Which is exactly what the Supreme Court decided these kinds of donations from corporations kinda are . . .

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:That's odd. I always thought Jeff sort of liked the First Amendment and freedom of speech. Which is exactly what the Supreme Court decided these kinds of donations from corporations kinda are . . .

The Supreme Court case (Citizens United) dealt with individual expenditures, not direct contributions to candidates. Federal law still prohibits corporate contributions directly to candidates. Moreover, my point is not that the contributions are illegal (they aren't). Rather, they serve to highlight where Fenty's interests lay. How many individuals in DC can afford to give the maximum contribution of $2,000 to a candidate? How many of them also control 11 corporations and can therefore give $22,000 more? So, assuming both Mr. and Mrs. Lerner give maximum personal contributions, they can be in to Fenty for $26,000. So, when there is a development project on the horizon, who do you think gets Fenty's attention? If you are comfortable with this sort of influence going to developers, then by all means, vote Fenty.

[Anonymous]

I'll have to re-read the case, but I could have sworn it held that corporations should not be treated any differently than individuals where campaign donations are concerned.

[Anonymous]

So, when DCPS school buildings are turned over to developers rather than charter schools, you know why. The "education mayor" has debts to repay.

Yes, much better to hemorrhage money maintaining vacant facilities that will never, ever have the level of enrollment. I know its a difficult concept to grasp, especially with DC's history, but an Administration's dedication to education is no more directly proportional to the number of unused facilities than an Administration's commitment to the environment is directly proportional to the number of trash-strewn vacant lots in the city.

Developers are giving money to Fenty because--whether he's being honest about it or not--Gray has already said he's going to rein the developers in so that "no one is left behind." We've got a massively disproportionate number of the extremely poor in DC (compared to surrounding municipalities), and we can't get to a point where DC has a healthy socioeconomic mix if developers are prevented from building housing and services for the middle-class.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

So, when DCPS school buildings are turned over to developers rather than charter schools, you know why. The "education mayor" has debts to repay.

Yes, much better to hemorrhage money maintaining vacant facilities that will never, ever have the level of enrollment. I know its a difficult concept to grasp, especially with DC's history, but an Administration's dedication to education is no more directly proportional to the number of unused facilities than an Administration's commitment to the environment is directly proportional to the number of trash-strewn vacant lots in the city.

Apparently an even more difficult concept to grasp is that there are charter schools that would love to have those properties. A building that housed a charter school would not be vacant and would use the budget now used to support substandard facilities to maintain the building. But, as I said, if you want to turn over everything that's not nailed down to developers, you should vote Fenty. He's your (or more accurately, their) man.

[Anonymous]

Apparently an even more difficult concept to grasp is that there are charter schools that would love to have those properties.

Please. Regardless of what the charter school advocates would have you believe, most of these facilities are completely unsuitable for the existing charter schools. Either because the space is too large, or because the building are literally falling apart.

So you put 200 kids into a rotting facility that's designed for 1000 and you've merely privatized the same clusterfuck that existed with DCPS.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Apparently an even more difficult concept to grasp is that there are charter schools that would love to have those properties.

Please. Regardless of what the charter school advocates would have you believe, most of these facilities are completely unsuitable for the existing charter schools. Either because the space is too large, or because the building are literally falling apart.

So you put 200 kids into a rotting facility that's designed for 1000 and you've merely privatized the same clusterfuck that existed with DCPS.

I can think of at least two charter schools that could easily fill a 1,000 student facility that are currently looking to expand or in the process of expanding. Fenty has a history to attempting to privatize public facilities. If he needs a heated pool for his morning swim, the funds are easily found. But, if a library needs a refresh, suddenly the only way to do it is let a developer build condos on top of it.